Is Discussion Needed?

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Today a furious campaign is being waged in the party, from above, against discussion in general. Pravda runs articles arguing that discussion is harmful and dangerous. But no one indicates how else disputed questions are to be resolved.

What is a discussion? It is the formal consideration by the party of the questions which stand before it on which there are differences. Can the party decide these matters without discussing them? It cannot. And if the party is not to decide these questions, who is to decide them for it? This is essentially what it all comes down to — whether someone can decide disputed questions for the party, in place of the party, and behind the back of the party.

Pravda and those who speak against discussion say, “All these questions have already been decided by the party — by the Fourteenth Congress, the Central Committee plenums, etc.” But the point is that ten months have already passed since the Fourteenth Congress. At the congress there were disputes over whether the influence of the kulak was growing in the village, or whether that of the party, the proletariat, and the poor peasantry was. At the April plenum there were disputes over whether industry was rushing too far ahead or lagging behind, and whether wage increases were keeping pace with the overall rise in the standard of living in the country, or whether, on the contrary, they were lagging behind.

At the July plenum there were disputes over whether the influence of the proletariat in the soviets was increasing or whether, as a result of the growing power of the kulak and as a result of the lag in industry, the influence of petty-bourgeois and kulak elements was on the rise in the soviets, at the expense of the influence of the proletariat, the agricultural worker, the poor peasant, and the Communist.

It is quite obvious that on such questions there cannot be one set answer, once and for all. Disputes are tested against the living reality. It is necessary to take stock of the facts that have accumulated over the course of the past year, so that the party can, on the basis of mature deliberation, arrive at its own decision on all disputed and undecided questions.

Who else is to decide these questions if not the party? We are talking about questions upon which the fate of the proletarian dictatorship depends. It is necessary to review the whole experience at every new stage. Who other than the party can review this experience? If serious and deep-going differences arise within the party, who can decide them if not the party congress? And how can the congress decide such questions if the party does not talk them over and deliberate on them from every angle before the congress? And deliberating on questions from every angle is precisely what a formal party discussion is.

Of course a discussion has its negative aspects. Time and energy must be spent on a discussion. To a certain extent the practical work suffers as a result. But what is involved, after all, is the line to be followed in all our practical work. We need the kind of practical activity that will lead to the political and economic strengthening of the proletariat and that will assure the preponderance of the socialist elements in our economy over the capitalist ones. If differences arise over these fundamental questions, it is absurd to say, “Stick to the practical work, and don’t discuss what line is to be followed in that work.”

What are the basic questions that cannot be disregarded by any member of the party? They are questions like the following:

1. During the past year the entire economy took a step forward. There was an upturn in industry. The overall standard of living in the country improved. At the same time, real wages, by comparison with the autumn of last year, declined. How and why did that happen? Isn’t there a danger that the overall standard of living will continue to rise faster than wages? That would mean that the influence of the working class in society at large would decline. Is it necessary to discuss this question or isn’t it?

2. The goods famine in our country means that industry is not providing the necessary quantity of goods to exchange for the surplus produced by peasant agriculture. This is the source of the so-called disproportion, the disparity between the peasant demand and the available quantity of industrial goods. Before the Fourteenth Congress and at the April plenum, there were disputes over whether this disproportion was diminishing or, on the contrary, increasing. The evidence of this autumn has made it plain to everyone that the disparity has grown worse. This means that industry, even though it has moved ahead, still lags behind the overall growth of the economy. This means that the relative weight of state industry in the economy did not grow greater but decreased. This specifically explains the fact that real wages fell rather than rose during the year. Has the party deliberated on this question? No, it has not. Can one explain this by referring to the fact that the question has already been settled? No, one cannot. To be sure, the Fourteenth Congress and the April plenum gave answers to these questions — answers that were binding upon the entire party. But what of decisions that the party arrives at itself and that are tested against the living reality? The party takes the results of such testing into consideration. If there are differences in the party or its Central Committee, the party discusses these differences and arrives at its own decision, which is binding upon everyone. The same is true of all other questions as well. They are linked together in one general chain. Industry lags behind the overall growth of the economy; socialist accumulation lags behind accumulation in the economy as a whole; wages lag behind the generally higher level of the economy. This means that the economic role of the proletariat is not growing rapidly enough and is even shrinking in relative terms. And this cannot help but have political repercussions. The latest soviet elections showed a certain decline in the relative political weight of the proletariat and its closest support in the village, the poor peasant. Can it be said that these questions have been decided once and for all? No, we have before us new facts of exceptional importance. In the assessment of these facts there are differences, including in the Central Committee. Who can arrive at a decision on this question? The party, in the form of its congress.

One may argue that the minority in the Central Committee must subordinate itself to the majority. That is absolutely beyond question. One may make the claim that certain Central Committee members have violated discipline. For this they can be penalized. But that does not eliminate the question of the party congress. The problem is that the party must be given the opportunity to review its old decisions in the light of the new facts and experiences. Is it true that the danger is not from the kulak but from those who warn against the kulak danger? Is it true that the party should direct its fire against the left, that is, against that section of the party which has sounded the alarm about the lag in industry, about the decline in the relative weight of the proletariat in Soviet society, the weakened influence of the poor peasant in the village, and so on? The problem before us is that of the general line of party policy. The present year has provided us with an enormous number of facts against which to test that line. How can this test be made, and by whom? How can the Fifteenth Congress arrive at its own decision, if the party does not give a hearing to all the points of view in dispute and make its own decision?

The whole difficulty is that certain comrades, the editors of Pravda in particular, are presenting arguments to the effect that it is possible for someone to arrive at decisions without the party. Discussion, they say, is harmful and dangerous. But that simply means, after all, that it is harmful and dangerous for the party to talk over controversial questions. What to do, then, in the event of disagreements? To this question they offer no answer.

Is it true that discussion is dangerous? That depends on the kind of discussion. Is it dangerous for a workers’ cell to talk over the question of why wages have fallen in the midst of a general upturn in the economy? Is it dangerous for a workers’ cell to listen to the opinion of the Central Committee majority on this, and the opinion of the Opposition? No, in this there is no danger. All that is needed is for the differing opinions to be presented in strict accordance with party procedure, to be discussed in the proper tone, to be dealt with from all angles, and for the entire party to be provided with the necessary documents, so that no one is left in the dark. It is quite a different matter when you have an unceasing, furious, one-sided discussion being conducted in the press and at party meetings — a discussion that degenerates more and more into plain baiting and vilification of the Opposition, while the basic documents in which the Opposition has set forth its point of view are kept hidden from the party. That is the kind of discussion that is dangerous. It poisons the collective mind of the party. It saps the unity of the party.

Pravda states that discussion distracts comrades from practical work. But even so a discussion is being carried on, and moreover one that has not let up since the Fourteenth Congress. Speeches are made, articles are written, pamphlets published, resolutions passed — all aimed against the Opposition. The Opposition’s real views and proposals all the while are monstrously distorted. It is not given the right to express itself. Now a discussion has been launched from above to the effect that discussion is not needed. Some sort of new theory is being created that disputed questions can be decided without the party talking them over. A violent, one-sided discussion on this theme is under way. The party is squandering an enormous amount of energy instead of talking about the essential questions — why wages are being reduced, why the purchasing power of the chervonets has fallen, why kulak influence has grown in the village, and why the standard of living in this country as a whole has risen faster than that of the working class. It is these facts that threaten the dictatorship, not the consideration of them by the party. All the necessary measures must be taken to ensure that a discussion can proceed along correct party lines. Whoever wishes to do without a discussion thereby shows that he wishes to do without the party.

No one can decide a question for the party. We need to discuss, not whether to hold a discussion, but the most fundamental and vital questions on which the fate of the proletariat and the building of socialism in our country depend.